State v. Holt’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2009
19 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Duren v. Missouri · Patterson v. United States · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Strong v. United States · Frazier v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““22-3407. Motion to discharge jury panel. (1) Any objection to the manner in which a jury panel has been selected or drawn shall be raised by a motion to discharge the jury panel. The motion shall be made at least five days prior to the date set for trial if the names and addresses of the panel members and the grounds for objection thereto are known to the parties or can be learned by an inspection of the records of the clerk of the district court at that time; in other cases the motion must be made prior to the time when the jury is sworn to try the case. For good cause shown, the court may entertain the motion at any time thereafter. “(2) The motion shall be in writing and shall state facts which, if true, show that the jury panel was improperly selected or drawn. “(3) If the motion states facts which, if true, show that the jury panel has been improperly selected or drawn, it shall be the duty of the court to conduct a hearing. The burden of proof shall be on the movant. “(4) If the court finds that the jury panel was improperly selected or drawn, the court shall order the jury panel discharged and the selection or drawing of a new panel in the manner provided by law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Coy““This evidence was not offered under K.S.A. 60-455 to prove motive or any of the other factors listed in that statute, nor was it introduced in rebuttal to evidence of defendant’s good character. It was offered to show that defendant had the alleged murder weapon in his possession prior to the killing with which he was charged. As such it was relevant for a purpose independent of K.S.A. 60-455, and thus the criteria of that statute are inapplicable and no § 455 limiting instruction is required.” Holt, 228 Kan. at 21 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wilkerson
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.